49–010 

Calendar No. 316 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–198 

WATER SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ACT OF 2005 

DECEMBER 8, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed under authority of the order of November 18, 2005 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1860] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 1860) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

to improve energy production and reduce energy demand through 

improved use of reclaimed waters, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment 

and an amendment to the title and recommends that the bill, as 

amended, do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

1. Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 

thereof the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Supply Technology Program Act of 2005’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) ADVISORY PANEL.—The term ‘‘Advisory Panel’’ means the Water Supply 

Technology Advisory Panel established under section 3(d). 

(2) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘program’’ means the water supply technology research, development, demonstration, and commercial application program established under section 3(a). 

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Energy. 

(4) WATER AGENCY.—The term ‘‘water agency’’ means any State, instrumentality of a State, municipality, political subdivision, authority, utility, district, 

association, or other entity that provides water for public use. 

(5) WATER SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘water supply technology’’ 

means— 

(A) technologies for— 

(i) desalination and associated concentrate disposal; 

(ii) water reuse and recycling; 

2 

(iii) removing contaminants from water, including impaired water 

produced as a result of energy production activities; 

(iv) reducing the amount of energy required to provide adequate 

water supplies; 

(v) water use efficiency and conservation; and 

(vi) water monitoring and systems analysis; and 

(B) any other technologies identified by the Secretary as appropriate to 

carry out the program. 

SEC. 3. WATER SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND 

COMMERCIAL APPLICATION PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—In accordance with this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 

national program for the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of economically viable and cost-effective water supply technologies to— (1) increase the amount of water available for human use; 

(2) facilitate the widespread commercialization of newly developed water supply technologies for use in real-world applications, including the conduct of an 

assessment of economic and other market-related factors relating to the introduction and adoption of water supply technologies in practical applications; 

(3) facilitate collaboration among Federal agencies to provide for the integration of research on, and the development, demonstration, and commercial application of, water supply technologies; and 

(4) reclaim and improve access to previously unusable and nontraditional 

water resources. 

(b) OTHER AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may enter into any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, interagency agreement, or other transaction, as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this Act. 

(c) PROGRAM LEAD LABORATORY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall designate 1 or more lead National Laboratories to carry out water supply technology research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities under the program. 

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining the number of lead laboratories to designate under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider the amount of appropriations available to carry out the program. 

(3) SELECTION OF UNIVERSITY AND WATER AGENCY PARTNERS.—Each lead laboratory designated under paragraph (1), in consultation with the Advisory 

Panel, shall select at least 1 university partner and at least 1 water agency 

partner to assist the lead laboratory in carrying out the program. 

(d) ADVISORY PANEL.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an advisory panel, to be 

known as the ‘‘Water Supply Technology Advisory Panel’’, to advise the Secretary on the activities carried out under this Act. 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.—Members of the Advisory Panel shall— (A) have expertise in— (i) water supply technology; or 

(ii) legal or regulatory issues associated with adopting water supply 

technologies in real-world applications; and 

(B) be representative of institutions of higher education, industry, State 

and local governments, international water supply technology institutions, 

Federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. 

(3) DUTIES.—The Advisory Panel shall— (A) periodically assess the performance of water supply technology research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities 

being carried out under this Act; 

(B) advise the Secretary on research priorities to be carried out under 

this Act; 

(C) make recommendations to the Secretary for awarding research grants 

and demonstration project grants; and 

(D) identify legal, policy, or regulatory barriers to implementing water 

supply technologies in real-world applications. 

(e) WATER SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Defense, 

the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 

Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secretary of the Interior, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, and the heads of other appropriate Federal 

agencies, the Secretary, shall—

(A) assess the annual amount of Federal funding levels and authorizations for water supply technology research; 

3 

(B) assess the scope of the water supply technology research performed 

by other agencies; and 

(C) assess whether and to what extent Federal water supply technology 

research is duplicative. 

‘‘(2) TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP.—In consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secretary of 

the Interior, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the 

heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, the Advisory Panel, and any lead 

laboratories designated under subsection (d)(I), the Secretary, shall—

(A) assess any water supply technology research being performed; 

(B) identify water supply technology research and development priorities; 

and 

(C) develop a technology roadmap to identify critical water supply technology research, development, demonstration, and commercial application 

activities to guide program activities. 

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a detailed report on—

(A) the assessments conducted under paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

(B) the technology roadmap developed under paragraph (2)(C). 

(f) PROGRAM GRANTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide competitive grants to entities 

with expertise in the conduct of water supply technology research, development, 

and demonstration projects. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The grants under paragraph (1) shall be provided consistent with the technology roadmap developed under subsection (e)(2)(C). 

(3) LIMITATION.—Of amounts made available for grants under section 4(b)(2), 

not more than 25 percent shall be provided to National Laboratories and Federal agencies. 

(4) CRITERIA.—The Secretary shall establish criteria for the submission and 

review of grant applications and the provision of grants under paragraph (1). 

(g) PROGRAM REVIEW.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an independent third party review process to conduct periodic peer reviews of the program. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting a review under paragraph (1), an independent third party reviewer shall—

(A) review the technology roadmap, technical milestones, and plans for 

commercial application developed under the program; and 

(B) assess the progress of the program in achieving the technical milestones and plans for commercial application. 

(h) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Committee on Resources of the 

House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 

House of Representatives a report that describes the activities carried out under 

this Act, including the activities carried out under subsection (d)(3). 

(i) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.—Any activities carried out under this Act shall 

be subject to section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352). 

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 

carry out this Act, including the completion of the roadmap under section 

3(e)(2)(C)—

(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and 

(2) such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year thereafter. 

(b) ALLOCATION.—Of amounts made available under subsection (a) for fiscal year 

2007 and each fiscal year thereafter—

(1) not more than 24 percent shall be made available to the 1 or more lead 

laboratories designated under section 3(c)( 1), to be distributed equally between 

the lead laboratories if more than 1 lead laboratory is designated, for the conduct of activities under the program (including to carry out section 3(a)(2)); 

(2) at least 60 percent shall be made available for program grants under section 3(f), of which 20 percent, or as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, 

a higher percentage, shall be made available for demonstration projects; and 

4 

(3) not more than 15 percent shall be used to pay the administrative costs 

of carrying out the program, including costs to support the activities of the Advisory Panel. 

2. Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘To establish a program for the 

research, development, demonstration, and commercial application 

of water supply technologies, and for other purposes’’. 

PURPOSE OF MEASURE

The purpose of S. 1860 is to establish a program for the research, 

development, demonstration, and commercial application of water 

supply technologies. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Water shortages impair the production of energy and conversely, 

energy shortages impair the ability to provide adequate water supplies. A 2005 report by the Multi-Laboratory Energy-Water Nexus 

Committee, a consortium of twelve national laboratories, found ‘‘insufficient supplies of water can cripple energy production...insufficient or too costly energy can cripple water supplies.’’ Electricity production is entirely dependent on the availability of 

water, regardless of fuel source. Additionally, the vast majority of 

energy fuel production and processing is entirely dependent on having adequate access to water. For example, Sandia National Laboratories estimates that for every barrel of oil produced, ten gallons 

of water are required. Similarly, the transportation, distribution, 

acquisition and purification of water require large amounts of energy. Pumping and treating water for municipal and industrial 

uses account for two to three percent of the world’s energy consumption. Water availability and energy production are inextricably linked. For this reason, water shortages have the potential 

to impair energy production. 

Water shortages are anticipated domestically. A study by the 

Governmental Accountability Office states that ‘‘water managers in 

thirty-six States anticipate shortages in localities, regions, or Statewide in the next ten years.’’ The competing demands of energy production, population growth, drought, agricultural needs, environmental needs, and tribal interests in the West have resulted in a 

paucity of available water. In the States expected to grow most rapidly—Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida, California, and New Mexico—consumptive use already nears or exceeds available supply. 

Moreover, population growth in these regions shows no indication 

of abating. The U.S. Census Bureau recently estimated that by 

2030, Nevada will have more than four million residents, twice as 

many as in 2000. The availability of water suitable for human use 

is also of great importance in the Eastern United States. Despite 

receiving substantially more rainfall than the Western United 

States, much of the east coast is facing water shortages. Boston, 

Atlanta, and much of Florida are nearing the end of readily available water. 

A recent report released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Sandia National Laboratories states that during the 21st century water shortages will increasingly be the source 

of international conflict and have the potential to impair energy 

production capacity. ‘‘The expected rise in global population will 

drive a corresponding rise in demand for food, energy, and water 

5 

as well as tighten the interdependencies between the three. Such 

close linkages also give rise to an increasing possibility of political 

or economic upheavals stemming from a lack of any one of the key 

resources.’’ Nearly 1.2 billion people, roughly one fifth of the 

world’s population, currently live without reliable access to water. 

By 2030 it is estimated there will be an additional three billion 

people in the world. Finding new sources of water to meet this population growth will be an increasingly challenging international 

issue. 

Federal water resources research has remained level at approximately $700 million in 2000 dollars since the mid-1970s. Funding 

for water supply augmentation research has dropped dramatically 

during the same period. Funding for water supply augmentation 

and conservation dropped from $64 million in 1973 (in 2000 dollars) to $14 million in 2000. In recent years, the Federal Government has invested approximately $130 billion in research and development activities. Of this expenditure, research related to water 

resources accounts for only 0.5 percent. Various sources call for a 

renewed Federal investment in water resources research to address 

water scarcity. The Multi-Laboratory Energy-Water Nexus Committee states that ‘‘it is time to reinvest in the research and technology development needed to provide the tools to ensure sustainable water supplies for energy, moving to less water-intensive electric generation sources, and reducing the amount of energy required to provide an adequate water supply.’’ The Center for Strategic and International Studies and Sandia National Laboratories 

study identifies increased investment in water technology by developed nations as a way to avoid ‘‘instability or conflict related to 

water supplies.’’ A report by the National Research Council found 

that ‘‘the nation’s water resources research enterprise is not as well 

organized and financed as it will need to be if the science required 

to address the multiplying water problems confronting the United 

States is to be available.’’

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1860 was introduced on October 7, 2005, by Senator Domenici 

for himself, and Senators Bingaman, Alexander, and Frist and was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Senators Feinstein and Salazar are also cosponsors. The full Committee held a hearing on S. 1860 on October 20, 2005. At the business meeting on November 16, 2005, the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources ordered S. 1860 favorably reported with an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an 

open business meeting on November 16, 2005, by unanimous voice 

vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 

1860, if amended as described herein. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

During consideration of S. 1860, the Committee adopted an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute which addresses concerns 

6 

raised during the committee hearing and in written submissions 

and an amendment to the title. 

The substitute makes nine major changes in the bill as introduced. The first change removes the designation of Sandia, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories as lead laboratories. The amendment instead directs the Secretary of Energy 

(hereinafter ‘‘Secretary’’) to designate the lead laboratory or lead 

laboratories and directs the Secretary to take into account the 

amount of appropriations made available to carry out the program 

in making their designation. The second change directs the lead 

laboratory or lead laboratories to each partner with a water agency 

to carry out the program. A definition of ‘‘water agency’’ was also 

added by the substitute amendment. The third change provides 

that the Secretary shall conduct the technology assessment and 

roadmap. As introduced, S. 1860 provided that the Secretary, acting though the National Laboratories would conduct the technology 

assessment and roadmap. The fourth change directs the Secretary 

to submit a report on the findings of the technology assessment 

and roadmap within 18 months. As introduced, S. 1860 required 

the Secretary to submit the report within 24 months. The fifth 

change directs the Secretary to establish an independent third 

party review of the activities carried out under the program. As introduced, S. 1860 provided that the National Academy of Science 

would carry out the review. The sixth change expressly provides 

that activities carried out under the Act shall be subject to the costsharing provisions of section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The seventh change provides that not more than 25 percent of the 

funding would be provided to the lead laboratory or lead laboratories. As introduced, S. 1860 provided that at least 40 percent of 

the funding would be provided to the lead laboratory or lead laboratories. The eighth change provides that at least 60 percent of 

the funding would go to competitive grants. Of this amount, at 

least 20 percent shall be provided for demonstration projects. As introduced, S. 1860 provided that at least 40 percent of the funding 

would be provided for competitive grants, no percentage of funding 

was allocated for demonstration projects. The ninth change deletes 

the amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–

58), creating this Act as a new section 112 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 provides the short title, the ‘‘Water Supply Technology 

Program Act of 2005.’’

Section 2 defines the terms used in the Act. 

Section 3 subsection (a) directs the Secretary to establish a national program for the research, development, demonstration, and 

commercial application of economically viable and cost-effective 

water supply technologies to: increase the amount of water available for human use; facilitate the widespread commercialization of 

newly developed water supply technologies for use in real-world applications; facilitate collaboration among federal agencies in their 

water supply technology activities; and reclaim and improve access 

to previously unusable and nontraditional water sources. 

7 

Subsection (b) provides that the Secretary may enter into any 

grant, contract, agreement, or other transaction, as the Secretary 

determines necessary to carry out the Act. 

Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to select one or more lead 

National Laboratory to carry out water supply technology research, 

development, demonstration, and commercial application activities 

under the program. The subsection also directs the Secretary to 

consider the amount of appropriations available to carry out the 

program in determining the number of lead laboratories to designate. The subsection also provides that each lead laboratory, in 

collaboration with the advisory panel, shall select at least one university partner and one water agency partner 

Subsection (d) directs the Secretary to establish a ‘‘Water Supply 

Technology Advisory Panel’’ consisting of members that have expertise in water supply technology or legal or regulatory issues associated with adopting water supply technologies in real-world applications. The subsection provides that the advisory panel: assess the 

performance of the activities being carried out under the Act; advise the Secretary on research priorities; make recommendations to 

the Secretary for awarding grants; and identify legal, policy, or regulatory barriers to implementing water supply technologies. 

Subsection (e) directs the Secretary, in collaboration with appropriate Federal agencies to: assess the amount of annual Federal 

authorizations and appropriations for water supply technology research; assess water supply technology research performed by other 

Federal agencies; and assess whether and to what extent the research is duplicative. The subsection also directs the Secretary, in 

collaboration with appropriate Federal agencies, the lead laboratory or lead laboratories and the advisory panel to: assess any 

water supply technology research being performed; identify research and development priorities; and develop a technology roadmap. The subsection directs the Secretary to submit a report on the 

activities carried out under this subsection within 18 months after 

the activities are completed. 

Subsection (f) directs the Secretary to provide competitive grants 

to entities with expertise in the conduct of water supply technology 

research, development, and demonstration projects. The subsection 

also provides that the grants shall be provided consistent with the 

technology roadmap and that not more than 25 percent of funds 

made available for grants shall be provided to National Laboratories and Federal agencies. 

Subsection (g) directs the Secretary to establish a third-party review of: the technology roadmap; technology milestones; plans for 

commercial application developed under the program; and to assess 

the progress of the program in achieving the technical milestones 

and plans for commercial application. 

Subsection (h) directs the Secretary to submit a report to Congress that describes the activities carried out under this Act three 

years after the date of enactment of this Act and each year thereafter. 

Subsection (i) provides that any activities carried out under this 

Act shall comply with section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(42 U.S.C. 16352) related to cost-sharing. 

Section 4 subsection (a) authorizes $5,000,000 to be appropriated 

for fiscal year 2006 to carry out the roadmap under section 

8 

3(e)(2)(C) and authorizes to be appropriated such sums as necessary for each fiscal year thereafter. 

Subsection (b) provides that, for amounts appropriated for fiscal 

year 2007 and each fiscal year thereafter, not more than 25 percent 

shall be made available to the one or more lead laboratories. The 

subsection further provides that, if more than one laboratory is 

designated as a lead laboratory, the amount appropriated to the 

lead laboratories shall be distributed equally among the lead laboratories for the conduct of activities under the program, including 

to carry out section 3(a)(2). The subsection further provides that, 

for amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2007 and each fiscal year 

thereafter, at least 60 percent shall be made available for program 

grants under section 3(f), of which, at least 20 percent shall be 

made available for demonstration projects. The term ‘‘demonstration projects’’ includes: tests of water supply technologies intended 

to assess performance in the natural variability of real world parameters and outside of well-controlled laboratory conditions which 

reduce the risk for commercial application; tests designed to identify problems associated with using a water supply technology on 

a large scale and other problems that may arise in applying a new 

water supply technology in a field setting; and tests designed to incorporate water supply technology into large-scale production and 

commercial applications. The subsection further provides that not 

more than 15 percent shall be used to pay the administrative costs 

of carrying out the program, including costs to support the advisory 

panel. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 1860—Water Supply Technology Program Act of 2005 

Summary: S. 1860 would authorize research and development 

(R&D) on water supply technologies at the Department of Energy 

(DOE). The new program would support collaborative research by 

national laboratories, universities, and water agencies on practical 

applications of technologies in such areas as desalination, contaminant removal, and water reuse and recycling. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $5 million for the program in 2006 and 

such sums as may be necessary thereafter. Other provisions would 

direct the Secretary of Energy to assess technology needs, set research priorities, and coordinate efforts with other agencies and a 

Water Supply Technology Advisory Panel. 

CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost about $94 

million over the 2006–2010 period, assuming appropriation of the 

necessary amounts. Enacting this bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues. 

S. 1860 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

The bill would authorize a research and development program that 

would benefit participating institutions of higher education and 

water agencies. Any costs incurred by those entities would result 

from complying with conditions for receiving federal assistance. 

9 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1860 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 270 (energy). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................................... 5 15 25 35 45 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 4 8 17 27 38 

Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by 

the end of calendar year 2005 and that the amounts necessary to 

implement the R&D program will be appropriated for each year. 

CBO estimates that implementing this program would require 

funding levels to increase from the $5 million authorized for 2006 

to about $45 million by 2010. 

As outlined by the bill, the program would support R&D by multiple parties—at least one national laboratory, one university, and 

a water supply agency—and focus on the development, demonstration and commercialization of complex technologies. Thus, CBO expects that this water supply program would be similar in scale to 

DOE’s other applied research and development initiatives, which 

generally spend between $10 million and $80 million a year. Estimated outlays are based on historical trends for such similar R&D 

programs. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1860 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined by 

UMRA. The bill would authorize a research and development program that would benefit participating institutions of higher education and water agencies. Any costs incurred by those entities 

would result from complying with conditions for receiving federal 

assistance. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp. Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum. 

Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

S. 1860. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 1860. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Department of Energy at the full 

Committee hearing on S. 1860 in the 109th Congress follows: 

10 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER, ACTING ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE

ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on S. 1016, requiring 

the Secretary of Energy to make incentive payments to the 

owners of qualified desalination facilities to partially offset 

the cost of electrical energy required to operate facilities, 

and S. 1860, which would amend the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 to improve energy production and reduce energy demand through improved use of reclaimed waters and other 

purposes. 

Although supplying and distributing water is largely a 

local responsibility, we believe there is a Federal role in 

providing appropriate scientific and technological support 

for these efforts. S. 1016, however, poses a narrower question: Should the Department of Energy subsidize electricity costs at desalination facilities? We believe the answer is no. While well intended, S. 1016 is not a comprehensive approach to the challenge we face. It would 

subsidize a narrow group of electricity users engaged in 

water desalination efforts, and could divert limited Federal 

funding from efforts to engage in a more comprehensive 

approach. 

It is our view that incentive payments are not the best 

means to remove the energy cost barriers to desalinating 

water. Instead, we feel continued targeted Federal support 

for desalination research and development consistent with 

the Administration’s Research and Development Investment Criteria, as well as our ongoing efforts to reduce energy demand and increase supply through the adoption of 

comprehensive energy legislation, will have a larger impact in the long-run on reducing desalination costs than 

will making incentive payments to the owners or operators 

of individual facilities. 

The Department of Energy finds S. 1860 to be well intentioned as it shares our view that we must develop innovative new approaches to dealing with the regional, national, and global challenges related to water availability 

and quality. However, we have several concerns regarding 

the specific language of this bill. 

First, the bill appears to shift substantial statutory authority from the Secretary to the designated National Labs 

and places the lead National Labs in inappropriate roles 

for assessing Federal funding and activities across agencies. We are also concerned that the bill appears to leave 

out the private sector and its key role in RD&D and commercialization. 

The bill places as much as two-thirds of the funding at 

the lead National Labs, largely outside of any merit-based 

competitive process and it does so with little flexibility, not 

recognizing that the allocation of funding will vary with 

the status of technology RD&D and commercialization, and 

private sector roles. We believe that the funding levels, 

11 

roles and responsibilities for the Labs, Universities, and 

private sector should be determined by the Secretary in 

order to meet the national needs identified by the legislation. 

We share the view that we must develop innovative new 

approaches to dealing with the regional, national, and 

global challenges related to water availability and quality, 

and this is an issue that is commanding significant attention at the highest levels of the Administration. 

For example, in August 2004 the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) identified water as a top Administration research and development priority and called 

upon the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 

to ‘‘develop a coordinated, multi-year plan to improve research to understand the processes that control water 

availability and quality, and to collect and make available 

the data needed to ensure an adequate water supply for 

the Nation’s future.’’ The NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources has formed a Subcommittee 

on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) comprised of 

more than 15 Federal Departments and Agencies who are 

now in the process of developing a comprehensive research 

plan. Their first report, ‘‘Science and Technology to Support Fresh Water Availability in the United States,’’ was 

released in November, 2004. Among the points highlighted 

by this report are the following: • We do not have an adequate understanding of 

water availability at national, regional, or local levels. • Water, once considered a ubiquitous resource, is 

now scarce in some parts of the country—and not just 

in the West as one might assume. • The amounts of water needed to maintain our natural environmental resources are not well known. 

• We need to evaluate alternatives to use water 

more efficiently, including technologies for conservation and supply enhancement such as water reuse and 

recycling as a way to make more water available. 

• We need improved tools to predict the future of 

our water resources to enable us to better plan for the 

more efficient operation of our water infrastructure. 

The Water Desalination Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

298) gave lead responsibility to the Department of the Interior to conduct, encourage, and assist in the financing of 

research to develop cost-effective and efficient means for 

converting saline water into potable water suitable for 

beneficial uses. We are looking at ways to better coordinate our efforts with those of the Department of the Interior and other agencies through the process underway in 

the NTSC’s Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality. 

At the Department of Energy, we have been in serious 

discussions with some of our labs on what we call the ‘‘energy-water nexus.’’ The relationship between energy and 

water is not well understood by the public, and it is surVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Dec 13, 2005 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR198.XXX SR198
12 

prising to many, for instance, that the amount of fresh 

water withdrawn nationally for electricity production is 

more than twice as much as the water used for residential, 

commercial, and industrial purposes, and is comparable to 

the amount of water used for agricultural irrigation. 

Meanwhile, pumping, storing, and treating water consumes huge amounts of electricity—an estimated 7 percent 

of California’s electricity consumption is used just to pump 

water. 

We understand that our energy and water supplies are 

interconnected. In fact, as much energy is used for water 

and wastewater purposes as for other major industrial sectors of the U.S. economy such as paper and pulp and petroleum refining. 

Although the hearing today focuses on producing drinkable water through a technological process, the equally important aspect of the larger issue is finding ways to reduce 

water consumption and remove some of the demand pressure from regional water supplies. Price and regulatory 

signals can create market incentives to reduce water use. 

One area for consideration is the water intensive process 

of thermoelectric generation from fossil fuels such as coal. 

For these systems, an average of 25 gallons of water is 

withdrawn to produce a kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity 

of which nearly one-half gallon is consumed by evaporation. Overall, fossil-fuel-fired power plants require withdrawals of more than 97 billion gallons of fresh water each 

day. 

The Department’s Office of Fossil Energy is supporting 

several research projects aimed at reducing the amount of 

fresh water needed by power plants and to minimize potential impacts of plant operations on water quality. One 

project at West Virginia University is assessing the feasibility of using underground coal mine water as a source of 

cooling water for power plants. A North Dakota project is 

attempting to reduce the water consumption of power 

plants by recovering a large fraction of the water present 

in the plant flue gas. A project in New Mexico is exploring 

whether produced waters, the byproduct of natural gas 

and oil extraction which often present a disposal issue, can 

be used to meet up to 25 percent of the cooling water needed at the San Juan Generating Station, as well as investigating an advanced wet-dry hybrid cooling system. In addition, the Department currently has a competitive solicitation on the street seeking additional innovative technologies and concepts for reducing the amount of fresh 

water needed to operate fossil-based thermoelectric power 

stations, including advanced cooling and water recovery 

technologies. The Department is also investigating whether a suite of specially selected, salt-tolerant agricultural 

crops or other plants can be used to remove sodium and 

other salts from coalbed methane produced water so that 

it can be safely discharged or used in agriculture. 

One promising new approach to electricity generation, 

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology 

13 

that converts coal and other hydrocarbons into synthetic 

gas, offers significant environmental and water benefits 

compared to traditional pulverized coal power plants. Because the steam cycle of IGCC plants typically produces 

less than 50 percent of the power output, IGCC plants require 30 to 60 percent less water than conventional coalfired power plants. The Department is supporting research, development, and demonstration on a number of 

advancements that will significantly drive down the costs 

of IGCC plants. 

The Fossil Energy office is also supporting work at the 

University of Florida investigating an innovative diffusiondriven desalination process that would allow a power plant 

that uses saline water for cooling to become a net producer 

of fresh water. Hot water from the condenser provides the 

thermal energy to drive the desalination process. Using a 

diffusion tower, saline water cools and condenses the low 

pressure steam and fresh water is then stripped from the 

humidified air exiting the tower. This process is more advantageous than conventional desalination technology in 

that it may be driven by waste heat with very low thermodynamic availability. In addition, cool air, a by-product of 

this process, can be used to cool nearby buildings. 

The Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is supporting R&D for innovative 

wind and solar electricity supply technologies that have attributes that may prove to be very beneficial to the desalination industry. 

For example, wind power is now becoming a competitive, 

clean, bulk electric power supply option in many areas of 

the Nation, and places no further demand on water supplies for its operation. In addition, excellent offshore wind 

resources are available near many coastal areas facing 

water supply challenges. The role that wind could play in 

powering desalination could take a range of forms, from 

stand-alone systems exclusively powered by wind, to desalination plants that receive the majority of their energy 

requirements from wind power delivered via electricity 

grid systems. In either case, the relative ease and low cost 

of storing desalinated water, in comparison with storing 

electricity, will allow operating flexibilities that will facilitate using inherently variable wind power as a primary energy source for desalination. 

We are currently funding a concept design study which 

will set up engineering and economic models to examine 

viability of wind-powered reverse osmosis systems, looking 

at applications for coastal seawater, inland brackish water, 

and water produced during oil or gas recovery. A second 

project will model solar and wind resources for a desalination unit to determine the effects of variable loads on desalination, and perform pilot-scale testing to determine 

how renewable energy could reduce desalination costs. 

We are also undertaking a mapping project to overlay 

data such as fresh and brackish water resources, wind resources, water consumption, estimated growth, and elecVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Dec 13, 2005 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR198.XXX SR198
14 

tricity supply. Two maps will be developed, one of the 

United States, and one for the four-state region of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, identifying locations 

that have the best economic and technical potential for 

using wind to power desalination. Even as we proceed with 

these activities, we are mindful that the energy intensive 

technique of reverse osmosis we use for desalination today 

may not be the membrane technology of tomorrow. But 

whether that breakthrough comes from a lab working specifically on desalination, or through an area of broader scientific research remains to be seen. The Department’s Office of Science, for example, is studying microbes and 

smart membranes that may ultimately have relevance to 

desalination in the future. 

Having said that, it seems certain that desalination will 

play an important role in maintaining and expanding our 

Nation’s, and indeed, the world’s water supply. Where 

fresh water aquifers are under pressure in many regions, 

over-drafted and subject to saltwater intrusion, brackish 

aquifers can be found throughout the country and the 

world, a ready source of new water. More than 120 countries are now using desalination technologies to provide potable water, most commonly in the Persian Gulf where energy costs are low. The desalination plants of the future 

must come in a range of sizes so that they can be installed 

where demand exists-smaller footprint facilities which can 

make use of smaller deposits of impaired water, at a price 

the community can afford. For American companies, the 

growing need for desalination will open new global markets. Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement, and I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 1860, as ordered reported. 

Æ